In a bizarre and confused attempt to defend the Obama administration’s new policy of “strategic reassurance” (read: appeasement of Red China), a blogger for the New Yorker argues that the president’s refusal to meet with His Holiness the Dalai Lama is an eminently reasonable concession to the domestic politics of authoritarian China. The blogger in question, Evan Osnos, who is based in mainland China, says that the “gesture [of slapping the revered Tibetan spiritual leader in the face] is intended to set the stage for Obama’s trip to Beijing, when he will hope to narrow the gap on issues as diverse as climate change, Iran and North Korea, and trade disputes.” And Osnos seems confident that it will do just that. He rebukes conservatives who are skeptical that the Chinese can be enticed to cooperate on security and environmental issues that are obviously at odds with the Chinese Communist Party’s own interests. In particular, Osnos points to this post by AEI’s Dan Blumental:
Osnos says it is a “mistake” to assume, as Blumenthal does, that the Chinese “see the world in terms of power politics.” He goes to say that “China has far less maneuverability on Tibet than it does on Iran or North Korea, and if Beijing can be persuaded that there are dividends to be had from Washington then it might be willing to bend its positions on other issues.” Does the Chinese Communist Party really need greater maneuverability from its cowed public before respecting the human rights of the Tibetan people? China is a dictatorship — the party tells its people how many children they’re allowed to have, it doesn’t need the public’s consent before changing course on Tibet policy. They will not fall in an election next year if they fail to take a tough line with a few unarmed monks living in the Himalayas. In a response posted today, Blumenthal points out that strategic reassurance should assure no one, and in particular should be cause for concern among liberals like those who dominate the pages of the New Yorker:
Hey, but if we can’t free Tibet from godless communism, maybe we can save the glaciers there.
